Im back (and you dont care)

Currently getting set up to write reviews again, this blog and also a collaboration with a Raphael.
Looking forward to writing things few people will read, stay tuned.

A Movie Review of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

so i went to see the girl with the dragon tattoo (hollywood version)

I SHOULD START BY SAYING THAT I HAVEN’T READ THE BOOKS

Ok, now the movie: it does not live up to the hype, specially compared to the Swedish film. They tone it down, which was fine, but then some of the motivation gets lost, and they try to use other elements that dont really fit in. They also moved some plot points around, and changed some characters, i think they edited some stuff to make the movie more ‘american’ and i dont think it paid off. MAJOR COMPLAIN: the take off some of the back story, Martin is underdeveloped, they also took off the flashbacks of Lisbeth that appear in the swedish version, but most importantly they ADDED some stuff that was not in the swedish version. Lisbeth’s guardian had a stroke, but they show it more in this one, and she never goes to see her mother, i think they say she “tried” to kill her father?

Another major complain is the way the set up Lisbeth. In the Swedish Film, she is more cold and distant, she is much more believable (plus her tattoo is awesome), and the way the character develops seems more natural and realistic. In this one her emotions and feelings are much more easier to see, which i dont think fit with the character, she also “falls in love” in true hollywood movie fashion and does not fit in with the character nor is it really relevant throughout the film (until the end i guess). They also leave the flower thing, they completely forget about it, they throw it in at the beginning and then just leave forget about it.

The movie is full of advertisements too, and they weren’t very discrete, theres coca-cola, epsion, vaio, and they practically throw mcdonalds in your face.

Besides all those points i thought Mr. Reznor and Atticus Ross did a good job with the score and the overall mood of the movie felt right, the pacing was slow (as was the swedish one) but it does add something to the movie. The cinematography was also good.

I will give it an A (on OWL standards) and will just add that the credit scene at the beginning was pretty cool

EDIT Movie Score: 7.8/10

A Food Review on Taco Nazo

First food review! I have no idea how to be a food critic so whatever.


TYPE OF FOOD: Fish Tacos! (Baja-Style)
WHERE: Taco Nazo (9516 S. Garvey Ave., South El Monte CA, 91733)

Ok, so I went there last week. My friend took me there, and he never eats fish, so I knew this must be good. We got there and it was a bit crowded, but it was a Friday afternoon/evening (pre-evening) and there is bound to be people anywhere. The service was great, friendly people all around. I made my order (in Spanish of course) of Combo #1, which is 2 fish tacos ("con todo"), chips, salsa, and a soda. I went mostly for the fish tacos, but they also have shrimp tacos (which I want to try!) and cocktails and so on. For a full menu you can visit their website http://www.taconazo.com/menu
So I order my food, get my drink and go sit down. Must have waited around 4-6 minutes, not bad. I get my food and first thing I go for it the chips with some salsa. Chip is just generic chip, salsa is, well it wasn't good. It was to watery and too much salt. So I put the chips and salsa aside and I put the finishing touches on my tacos: lemon and tapatio sauce. I take the first bite, and it's actually better than I expected. The fish was good, but the best part of the tacos is their signature cream. I devoured the first taco, and proceeded to the second one.
--I don't know how you rate food, some people go by first bite, I actually go for last bite. Here is why: If the last bite is not good, then you end your eating experience on a bad note. Maybe the first bite isn't that good, but if you stop eating there you are missing out on the rest of the meal! (plus you paid for it anyways) So I reserve my judgment for my last bite.--
So last bite on the tacos, and I must say it was really good. It actually reminded me of some random taco place in Ensenada, where I had tacos like 6 years ago. I wish I would had tried some shrimp tacos, but I was full. If you are looking for good, Baja style seafood, I would recommend you go to Taco Nazo. It's the real deal people! Unless you want to go to Ensenada one weekend, which I'm totally down to go. Anyways, good tacos.
FOOD SCORE:

• ☺☺☺☺
• E.E. (O.W.L.) 

P.S. If I ever do another food review, it will go something like this, except (hopefully) more to the point. Remember I'm no expert!
P.S.#2 I watched The Descendents and Drive, but I haven't typed the reviews on those. I hit writers block or something, I'm not used to writing every week (for a blog and for school) so I was a little burned out. I want to get those out before the end of the month.
BTW: Thank you! Yes you! Thanks for Reading!

A Movie Review of Peeping Tom (1960)

Peeping Tom is about a man obsessed with filming the reaction of fear in people. He goes to great lengths to achieve a perfect reaction and capture it; he kills people to record their fear. He starts out killing without remorse, but at the end he loses control and his obsession takes over.

 

Mark Lewis was emotionally scarred by his father, who would always have a camera on him to record when Mark was afraid. As an adult he continues his father’s work. Although the movie tries to show him as a cold-blooded killer, I think he shows too much emotion to be considered one. He also has a lot of different and contradicting traits. He is shown to be distant and afraid of people, but then really friendly with his co-workers. When he is interviewed by the detective, Mark is confident enough to give them the camera with the footage, but then in the same scene he is way too impatient to have it back.

The Movie has some really interesting ideas that where dropped latter through the film. The opening scene is from the point of view of Mark’s camera, and then he goes back and watches the film that same night. They repeat this with the next murder, but then stop doing it. Using the point of view from Mark’s camera is used extensively in the first half, but then is almost absent from the rest of the film. I shows that Mark’s character doesn’t need to hide so much behind his camera as the story progresses, but I wish they could had stayed with that mechanic throughout the film. My favorite thing in the movie was the fact that he would go back to watch the tape of his latest victim, just moments after it had happened. Too bad they did away with that, and that there weren't enough killings.

Peeping Tom has some interesting concepts and ideas, but the characters are not fully developed. The dialogue is not the best and some things could have been explained better, like why Mike father was obsessed with fear, or how the blind lady knows to be suspicious of Mark and his work. And who was the other guy that lived in the house?

It's not such a good movie, I have no idea if they wanted to to horror or drama, or thriller, it was all over the place.

MOVIE SCORE:

• 6/10
• D (O.W.L.)

A Movie Review of Sunset Blvd. (1950)

Sunset Blvd. is the story of Joe Gills, a former Hollywood writer. He has fallen in debt and his scripts are not getting picked up by the studio. On a chance encounter he meets a star from the silent film era, Norma Desmond and helps her edit the script she has been working on for years.

The film starts out with a murder scene, and the rest of the film is about the events that led to that murder. I don’t know if it was the first time a movie used this plot device, but it didn’t feel new to me because many movies have done that now. In fact I guessed who the murder victim was from the very beginning. The story development was well paced, but I felt it got a bit slow when they introduced the “love interest”.

The movie is in B&W, and it reflects with some of the characters being starts from the silent era of film. The mood of the film stays consistent throughout, except for the title sequence. The title sequence is a slow tilt up from the street to the curb that reads Sunset Blvd. That shot feels grittier than the entire movie, and for me it made me think the movie was going to be more about the murder, or more like a detective story, rather than what the movie actually is.

The characters all had a lot of depth. I think out of the whole movie, Norma Desmond and her butler Max had the most character depth. Their back story was a complete surprise that I did not see coming and it makes the final act all that more dramatic. The character of Joe also had depth that makes his shift at the end more acceptable.

Strong characters and a solid story, this movie was very enjoyable, but it didn’t make me think much. It had some good right hooks that got me, and I can only imagine how audiences reacted when it was first released. I can see why it is a classic.

MOVIE SCORE:

• 7/10
• A (O.W.L.)

A Movie Review of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

After losing his father during 9/11, young Oskar goes on a scavenger hunt across New York to find a lock that fits the key his father left behind. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is the sort of movie you either get, or you don't get; or you like or hate. It wasn't at all what I expected it to be, and it has some very interesting things going on for it; but I just can't seem to form an opinion on it. Prepare to read a confused review. Not that the movie was confusing.

The movie starts off building on this father-son relationship. It's really strong and you can tell that Oskar really loves his father. It was done well, it didn't take long for the audience to get into thinking that the whole movie is about the father and son and that the movie revolves around them. It works really well when they take part of that, so the audience is right there with Oskar, emotionally it was really well done. I think this might be the strong point of the entire movie. The emotional reaction that you get from the characters and the story is what sets this movie apart from the rest (this year).

Another thing I liked about this movie is how they use a lot of different type of shots. There is a point when they actually use tiltshift, and it works. For those of you who don't know, tiltshift is a style of camera focus used to make a scene or picture look like a miniature. You can google it and see really cool videos. You might remember a scene in the Social Network that uses tiltshift, its during the Henley Sequence, but in that movie it looks super out of place, makes no sense. Back to this movie, the tiltshift scene makes sense, they cut from the map Oskar has to a wide shot of streets using tiltshift. It makes sense. They also have some scenes when they expand on the kid's fears and little quirks, like when he explains what makes him anxious, and the scene when the train passes on the bridge. I thought it was a really clever way to show you how Oskar feels and sees the world.

The story is great, it makes sense, it doesn't drag on for too long, it keeps you interested, but other than that is has nothing special. Character interaction is good, the big surprise for me was Sandra Bullock's character, i thought that was really really well done. Excellent even. I don't know what else to say about this movie, I definitely enjoyed it, but I don't think I would give it another watch, doesn't have a high re-watch value. If you haven't seen it, and are thinking about watching it then definitely go see it in a theater. 

MOVIE SCORE:

• 7.5/10
• A (O.W.L.)

A Movie Review of Hollywood Shuffle

Hollywood Shuffle is about Bobby Taylor, an African-American that is following his dream of becoming an actor, but can only get characters that are stereotypical for African-Americans. He goes to an audition for a jive pimp, and is faced with a decision: either take the role and contribute to the stereotype, or decline the role and stick to his morals. Throughout the movie, there are clips of how African-Americans are depicted in Hollywood movies, so you get a very broad, but limited, samples of roles they play.

Bobby Taylor is an actor struggling to get his break-through role. When he finally gets the job he must make a decision, either take it and play a stereotypical character, or hold on to some dignity and morals. It’s a struggle that is displayed all the way thru the movie. Bobby imagines himself being a director at a “black acting” school, rating movies with black actors in them, and then being threatened by the NAACP for playing a stereotypical black character in a movie. Every segment that he imagines serves as a way to reveal his internal struggle about playing the role he was offered. There are also characters that serve as the extremes of both sides. On the “selling yourself” side is the comedy actor “Batty”, which tells him that if his character does not die at the end, then it’s a good role. On the “stick to your morals” side is Bobby’s grandmother; which right out hates the idea of his grandson contributing to the deteriorating image of African-Americans.

The pace of the movie is good, it’s not slow or fast, it’s right down the middle, the scenes flow effortlessly and the story always feels concrete. The dialogue is good and feels genuine. The overall tone of the film is comedy, with some amount of drama, but not so much as it seems over done. The little segments are different enough to feel fresh, but no so distanced from the look of the movie that they feel disconnected. Hollywood Shuffle is a very fun movie that also comments on the state of African-American movies during that period of time.

-This is where the part for school is over, and my opinion starts-

Some comedy stuff is a little out dated, but some is high comedy. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this movie, but if you happen to come across it then you might give it a watch. There is a part when they are reviewing movies, and they show this one Zombie Pimps scene...now THAT is a movie i would go watch!

MOVIE SCORE:

• 6.5/10
• A (O.W.L.)

A Movie Review of Chronicle

Three High School students, Andrew, Matt, and Steve, gain amazing telekinesis power after coming in contact with some sort of alien artifact! They can move and control objects with their minds! Awesome idea right? should make for an amazing movie right? Well that's not the case for Chronicle; don't get me wrong, I liked the movie! but it has some issues and those issues keep this movie from reaching the potential it could had reached.

So the story goes a little something like this: Three guys find a strange structure underground. Three guys start to develop telekinesis powers. Three guys learn how to control their powers. This is one of the things I enjoyed the most of the movie, the story. It's not a superhero movie, its not science heavy movie, its not a fantasy movie, its just a movie about how cool it would be to suddenly get powers. Half the movie is just the three guys hanging out seeing how awesome their powers are, and messing with people and just having fun. I think that is perfect, have all that character interaction, it feels like you are actually discovering the powers with them, and you are! I think that was a good move, it might make the movie kind of slow, but it works. The other part of the story is when everything hits the fan, and that's when you get rewarded for all the time you spent hanging out with the characters. You react more because you have been with them the entire time. I thought the story and characters were really well done, very raw. When you see Andrew take that turn you really understand him. There is a real connection to the characters, that I feel many movies dismiss.

The story is great, character development is great, so what problems do I have with this movie? The decision to have it be like a "home movie" Why!? It makes no sense! At the beginning I went with it, I thought "oh here we go, prepare for shaky camera movement" but there was no shaky camera, in fact some scenes i forgot it was supposed to be a handheld camera, and you know what? They forgot too! I did like that they used the telekinesis to move the camera around, but beside that it was just to much. Towards the end they seemed to have forgotten about the camera at all, and had to make up an excuse for there to be film of the events! Getting the iPads and cellphones and cameras from the people and have them revolve around the characters just so you could get that close up of the action? I mean its too much. It also a lot to imply! I mean, am I to believe that someone found all those files somewhere? that the camera did not get blown to pieces, or that all the tapes had been out of it before it got blown up? Did someone go through the phones and cameras of all the people? did they not break upon impact with the ground? And did someone travel all that way to get the camera for that last shot?? I mean its just to much. I think the movie would had work as well without that element, there really was no need for it. It just bothered me, thought the whole movie I kept thinking about it, and it just distracted me from actually enjoying the movie! This style of shooting has to stop, it worked great for Blair Witch, it did well for Paranormal Activity; but it does not work when you want to have wide cinematic shots in your movie, its just not possible. If you made the conscious decision to have the characters filming the whole thing stick to it! Don't make up excuses to have the shots you want, its to much. Some people might be able to ignore all this, I just couldn't. Also: spring for better special effects, the baseball looked so fake that it just took me out of the entire experience! and its only that one scene that I have a problem with the effects, it just so noticeable.

Overall, Chronicle is a very interesting movie. Somethings where done really well, others could had been better. If you are looking for action, but presented in a different, more plausible manner, then this movie is for you. If you wish you had telekinesis powers, this movie is definitely for you!

MOVIE SCORE:

• 7/10
• A (O.W.L.)

A Movie Review of Sherlock Jr. (1924)

Sherlock Jr. is about a movie projectionist that dreams about being a detective, literally. Keaton stars in this slapstick comedy, playing a good-intentioned man that has bad luck. Keaton is trying to win the affection of a girl and is doing well until a pocket watch is stolen her father, and Keaton gets wrongly blamed for it. He goes back to his job, he falls asleep. In his dream he is Sherlock Jr. a very good detective, solving a case of missing jewelry. At the end of his dream he catches the crook, and wakes up back in the projection room to find that the girl is waiting for him. Turns out she did some investigation of her own and found out what really happened, discovering that Keaton was not the thief, she went to apologize.

 

Buster Keaton plays a loveable and naive man that is too nice for his own good. At the beginning of the film he finds a dollar, but is kind enough to return them to a woman that comes looking for them (after asking for a description of the dollar). He is also kind enough to give an old lady a dollar, when she also arrives looking for a dollar. Keaton changes personality, however, once he starts dreaming. As Sherlock Jr. Keaton is confident, and he is respected by everyone.

The movie has a very interesting concept: to have his dream be inside a movie. The technology was also impressive for its time. I especially liked when his dream self gets up from his body, what gets me is when he gets the hat. As a concept it was great, but at some point it seems that they lost themselves in what they could do and forgot about the plot. When he goes to sit in the garden, and the background changes to a street, then mountains and it keeps on changing before ending in the garden again. That entire scene does nothing to advance the plot, it’s only there because they could do it. The comedy bits are timeless, and charming; I laughed several times throughout. There are some parts that I thought seemed to drag on e.g. when he is riding the bike on the handlebars, but other than that the pacing is pretty good.

Although the movie is more than 80 years old, it is still a very enjoyable film. I don’t know what others might find funny, but to me somebody picking up a sticky paper and not being able to get rid of it is excellent comedy.

MOVIE SCORE:

• 7/10
• A (O.W.L.)

p.s. I watched this movie in my Film Class, and this is the review I turned in today.